Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

Or should that be "Danned if you do. Danned if you don't"? I'm referring to some of the responses given by those who are either puzzled, amused, or annoyed that some Christians are (gasp!) responding to the historical and theological claims made in TDVC.

• "But isn't it a good thing that people are talking about religious beliefs?" That depends. What exactly are they talking about? The notion that it is good to simply talk about how you feel about this or that is nonsensical. Using words isn't good enough; rather, how are the words being used? Are conversations that begin with a question such as, "Why are you a member of a Church that has such a rotten past and hates women?" going to result in much good? Of course, it depends in part on how you respond. But, really, how substantive are the specific conversations that result from people reading TDVC? What sort of questions are being asked If people simply immerse themselves further in the Coded Craziness (by reading, for example, Michael Baigent's The Jesus Papers, or some other piece of pseudo-historical trash), then "talking" is of little value. (Following a recent talk in Portland, I was asked by an audience member: "Why should I believe you instead of Michael Baigent when it comes to deciding whether or not the gnostic texts are historically reliable?" But it's not an issue of Olson vs. Baigent, but of reading the Christian Gospels and comparing them to the gnostic gospels, and recognizing that the latter have little to nothing to say about historical persons, events, and details. Read the sources!)

This question, by the way, was posed by Anderson Cooper of CNN this past week when he interviewed Sandra and me on his late night news program. I think we handled it well enough, but the notion that the TDVC is a good thing because it sparks conversation reminded me of the trick question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" You are put immediately on the defensive by an absurd question. Yet many conversations about TDVC begin with absurd questions that immediately put Catholics on the defensive. Then, if you choose to defend yourself ("I've never beaten my wife. Why did you say that?"), you sometimes hear:

• "What are Christians so afraid of? Obviously you are hiding something or else you wouldn't be defensive." Several readers have told me of the frustrations that come with being unexpectedly accosted by a family member or co-worker who has suddenly received his doctorate in Church history by reading TDVC (after all, the Chicago Tribune did write that Brown's novel does "transmit several doctorates' worth of fascinating history and learned speculation"). They are put on the defensive and often react defensively, naturally. Unfortunately, again, there are some people who really do think that if a Christian tries to defend or explain their beliefs, they have admitted guilt. Period. Say no more! You wouldn't be trying to defend yourself if you weren't guilty! Of course, you can't win, because if you say nothing, your silence is also understood to be an admission of guilt. (For a subtle variation of this approach, see this recent piece in TimesOnline, which also uses the "it's just fiction but it's also true" approach.) If, however, you are able to respond to this "question," you will probably have this reply thrown in your path:

• "Well, you have to admit that the Catholic Church has brought all of this negative attention on itself by being so mean and secretive." This often comes from people who apparently have, for whatever reason, an axe to grind with the Catholic Church and who are of the opinion that simply being Catholic is an offense to reason and humanity. As a former anti-Catholic fundamentalist myself, I am very familiar with the old and tired arguments about how big, secretive, nasty, powerful, and deceptive the Catholic Church was/is.

What I eventually learned was that I was mistaking my gross ignorance of Catholicism and Church history as evidence of some giant conspiracy theory. In other words, the Church must have lots of secrets since I didn't know much about it. Then I made the stunning decision (duh!) to actually read Church history (as written by Catholics, non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians), early Church writings, gnostic writings, official Church documents, and works of Catholic theology. Yes, there have been many bad Catholics and many bad deeds done in the name of the Catholic Church, which is often different than those acts being supported by the Catholic Church. Fair enough. What I found is that the Catholic Church, more than any other religious institution, has been willing to acknowledge the sins committed by sons and daughters of the Church. Every group has sinners within their ranks; but those groups shouldn't be judged solely by the sinners, but also by those who live and fulfill the mission of the group (also known, within the Catholic contexts, as saints). After all, if the presence of evil deeds is a good reason to do away with the Catholic Church, it's a good enough reason to do away with all of humanity, regardless of race, color, or creed.

But, sadly, none of this matters to those who are convinced that the Catholic Church has done little but terrorize, oppress, plunder, deceive, manipulate, control, and even murder throughout two thousand years of history (or 1700 years, if you want to believe that Constantine created the Catholic Church, a belief apparently shared, oddly enough, by Dan Brown and Tim LaHaye). Yesterday I was interviewed on a radio program on a large Seattle-area station. One of the two hosts explained he really liked TDVC because it provided a history of Christianity that was different from "99.9%" of the information people are usually given. He insisted the Catholic Church deserved to be portrayed negatively in TDVC because "that's how the Church was." After all, the Church has controlled "the story"of Jesus since the beginning, so isn't it time that people heard a different version? The issue at hand, it seemed, was not one of truth, but of options: I want a story that I like and that works for me. One problem, I replied, is that Brown's version isn't supported by any evidence and his assertions are often contradictory or go against his supposed sources (e.g., the appeal to gnostic "gospels" for a Jesus who is human only). Which then led to the host launching another question:

• "But isn't it true that we really can't know what happened in the first century? After all, we really don't have any reliable evidence about Jesus, do we?" This is the height of irony (or even cynicism) considering it is usually uttered after a litany of "facts" have been given about the early Church: it destroyed secret gospels, hated Mary Magdalene, oppressed women, was all about political power, etc., etc. So the only established facts about the first few centuries of Christianity are all negative? How convenient. How unconvincing. But this, I think, may be one of the most damaging consequences of the Coded Craziness: the conviction that there is nothing convincing about the historical evidence, especially not if might be in favor of the Catholic Church. In the words of a certain Jennifer "reviewing" our book over at the Barnes & Noble site (and "who is still looking for answers"):

Even thought the book was a work of FICTION, some things ring true & have been proven so. The fact that paganism was around before Christianity came along is true. The fact that the Catholic church did smear the face of it to promote more to Christianity is true. Pagan temples were remade to be Christian churches. As for the rest, NO ONE knows the truth. Who knows if Jesus was married or not, no one can know first hand since it was so long ago. All we have to go on are books written by us (man/woman) alike, and we only write it as WE see it to be. This is the reason they are called BELIEFS. Since religion & information has been passed down through the centuries, the truth has been watered down. Everyone has their own beliefs, & we shouldnt put people down just because their's conflicts with ours.

There you go: No one knows the truth. And that's the truth. But, we do know that Christianity is horrible. End of story. And for many readers, TDVC will be the end of the story. And that is a shame, a problem, and a challenge.

Comments

Carl:
Nice refutations. If Duh vincite comes up to me as says that the church hates women, I'll just retort by saying yeah the Greeks, the Romans and Egyptians loved girls so much they'd expose them in the moutains, toss 'em down sewers; drown them or simply abandonded. Roman society loved girls so much that Tacitus lambasted the Jews as aberrant and despicable for their opposition to infantcide.

The church is so secretive that when John Paul died 5 million people secretly went to see him in state and participate in his funeral while all the media covered the secret funeral with hidden cameras so the rest of the world could sneak a peek.
People die for a lie. Christanity has practiced Neitzche's holy lies and fooled everyone but not Dan and the Duhvincites who know the TRUTH and stand tall against the lies.

From the travel and tourism industry's point of view, The Da Vinci Code film is an opportunity to bring increased tourism and travel to the UK. But how sincere is this and what should Christians think about it?

This author's point of view is practical: sometimes 'bad' publicity is better than no publicity. Millions of people will see the film and many of them will come to Europe to visit locations used in the film. They will enter genuine holy sites and while there perhaps they will put aside the film's mixed message and have time to consider the beauty of the sites and think about God.

We at HolidayKeys would certainly recommend spending time near each of the sites. There are lots of bed and breakfasts and holiday cottages for rent around Lincoln Cathedral and Rosslyn Chapel. Even the north-west of Paris where Chateau de Villette is, there are French holiday villas.

What do you think about the book "Map of Bones" by James Rollins? It seems to be similar to TDVC. However, I just read an interview with the author where he is quoted as saying the following:

"Many thrillers, when collided with the Catholic Church or the Vatican, paint the Church, faith, and belief in a disparaging light. In Map of Bones, I sought to show the Church and its past in a manner that is both realistic and acknowledges some of the Vatican's corrupted past, but also stresses the role of Church as a fundamental factor in forming Western Civilization, and how faith in all its forms is as part of human nature as our own biology, whether it be the belief in God, a Higher Power, or in the substantive good in mankind. "

That sounds like it might be a good read. I'd be interested in your comments (and those of others).

Richard: I haven't read "Map of Bones" and I don't know if I ever will get to do so. But I just want to say that I have actually encountered literature that presented less-than-holy clergymen and yet did not offend my Catholic sensibilities. So I think it can be done. An example is Graham Greene's masterpiece, "The Power and the Glory".

Another example, on a local level, is the play "Walang Sugat" ("No Wounds"). It's a Filipino patriotic play where the hero, a revolutionary against the Spaniards, was brought to the church fatally wounded just at the moment when his girl was about to be wed against her will in an arranged marriage. His requested that he be married first to the girl, on the premise that he was fatally wounded anyway and would die soon, after which the girl could marry the man her parents arranged for her. The priest agreed, and after the exchange of vows, the hero stood up and reveals he just feigned his injuries. Earlier in the play, there's a scene of a Spanish friar directing the torture of captured revolutionaries. (The "bad Spanish friar" is a standard villain in our patriotic literature.) In the wedding scene itself, the priest asks for a "tip" before conducting the wedding. But my family and I did not find the play offensive because it shows that even if the clergymen are corrupt, the ordinary people still practice the faith.

So yes, it can be done. The problem with TDVC is that it does not present a bad friar or a bad priest, but it accuses the entire Church as an institution.

"From the travel and tourism industry's point of view, The Da Vinci Code film is an opportunity to bring increased tourism and travel to the UK."

Do you need a book or movie like TDVC to motivate tourists to visit the land of the Stonehenge; the Big Ben; the Westminster Abbey; the Buckingham Palace; the home country of writers like Shakespeare, Milton, Charles Dickens, the Bronte sisters, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Arthur Conan Doyle, G.K. Chesterton, Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, etc.; the birthplace of saints like St. Thomas More, etc.; etc., etc., etc.?

Do we, the sons and daughters of God, here on Earth have a duty to defend ourselves from lies and false accusations about our faith? Yes, not only for ourselves, but also for our children, our neighbors, and our Catholic faith community, which is none other than Roman Catholic Church. That's enough for all of us to understand that we must know the truth, speak the truth, and conduct ourselves in the truth. When a book like The Da Vinci Code mixes fiction with truth, especially the truth that is the core of God's love of man, then it is our joyful obligation to set the record straight and to live in the real, true joy of God's love of you and of me.

When presented with the challenge: "Isn't it a good thing that TDVC is starting discussion?" one possible response is that, yes, we can certainly make this lemon into lemonade.

I think that many people are sincerely confused about Christianity and do not know that it is an historical faith, that although much is taken on faith, this faith is based on historical events that not only can be, but are in fact known. OK, so we don't have an A&E bio of Jesus' life from early childhood up. Certain facts are known; but what is also important is that the Gospels are historical documents, recording the response of real, living human beings to the life of this one man, Jesus. Our faith is not based only on our conjectures about him - our faith is based on the witness of our fathers who knew him when he walked on the earth and witnessed his death and resurrection.

Some people seem to think that Christianity is a fairy tale, and so it's reasonable to give equal treatment to Gnostic accounts. But these are demonstrably fairy tales. TDVC is a good opportunity to say: "We're not just conjecturing here - we believe these things really happened - our faith is incarnational. I think the reason the Da Vinci fans constantly vacillate between "It's only fiction/It's really true" is that they're truly baffled and think that the Christian belief in Jesus is like, I don't know, the belief in St. George slaying the dragon - a naive acceptance of a myth. They don't realise that Christians have already confronted this stumbling block, this huge rock in the path of easy-going mystical thinking: these things are real, as water and blood and hair and nails are real.

That our faith is incarnational and anthropological is going to be more and more important with the increase of civil challenges to societal norms that are Christian in origin, for example challenges to the anti-polygamy laws. We will need to hold fast to our conviction that what is anti-Christian is anti-human.

When presented with the challenge: "Isn't it a good thing that TDVC is starting discussion?" one possible response is that, yes, we can certainly make this lemon into lemonade.

I think that many people are sincerely confused about Christianity and do not know that it is an historical faith, that although much is taken on faith, this faith is based on historical events that not only can be, but are in fact known. OK, so we don't have an A&E bio of Jesus' life from early childhood up. Certain facts are known; but what is also important is that the Gospels are historical documents, recording the response of real, living human beings to the life of this one man, Jesus. Our faith is not based only on our conjectures about him - our faith is based on the witness of our fathers who knew him when he walked on the earth and witnessed his death and resurrection.

Some people seem to think that Christianity is a fairy tale, and so it's reasonable to give equal treatment to Gnostic accounts. But these are demonstrably fairy tales. TDVC is a good opportunity to say: "We're not just conjecturing here - we believe these things really happened - our faith is incarnational. I think the reason the Da Vinci fans constantly vacillate between "It's only fiction/It's really true" is that they're truly baffled and think that the Christian belief in Jesus is like, I don't know, the belief in St. George slaying the dragon - a naive acceptance of a myth. They don't realise that Christians have already confronted this stumbling block, this huge rock in the path of easy-going mystical thinking: these things are real, as water and blood and hair and nails are real.

That our faith is incarnational and anthropological is going to be more and more important with the increase of civil challenges to societal norms that are Christian in origin, for example challenges to the anti-polygamy laws. We will need to hold fast to our conviction that what is anti-Christian is anti-human.

Has anyone heard of a homily about the Da Vinci Code?
The only thing worst than heresy, is the absent defense of Holy Mother Church by our clergy. I suspect that most priests and deacons can not speak against the novel and movie, because they themselves have read or watched the movie itself.

THE MOVIE IS NOT FICTION. Snow White is fiction. THIS MOVIE IS A LIE, a heresy presented factually, covered by "fiction."